The government’s permanent Senate appointment board is set to get underway “within days” to get to work on filling the remaining 19 vacant Senate seats, but if you listen very carefully, you can hear my alarm going of that the way they appear to be planning to do this is a Very Bad Idea. Specifically, it certainly looks like the plan is to appoint all 19 in one fell swoop by the fall, and I cannot stress enough how much of a really, really bad thing this is. It’s like nobody learned any of the lessons from the glut of 18 panic appointments in 2008, and how badly that stressed the Senate in its ability to absorb that many new members at once, and the fact that it had a negative effect on their independence because it meant that the government at the time pretty much controlled them and exercised a heavy whip hand because there wasn’t time to let them integrate at their own pace. The seven appointments made this spring, without a government or caucus to guide them, put them on a steep learning curve and left them with little in the way of logistical support for setting up their offices, which isn’t exactly ideal either. That Peter Harder has now created for himself a new quasi-whip (ahem, styled “government liaison”) that has the capacity to help them with some logistics issues, barring the Independent Working Group being in a position to offer that support as well if they are in a position to do so, may wind up being one less stressor for the individual appointees, but that still doesn’t neglect the fact that mass appointments are bad for the system. Because of the nature of the Senate, it works best when individual vacancies are filled as they happen, and that those new senators gradually get up to speed, given the unique way that the chamber operates, and that really is a process that can take two or three years to get fully into it. But the government sitting on the appointment process as long as it has, in order to do these appointments in one fell swoop, is a problem, and it’s yet another problem of their own making, which is a consistent pattern when it comes to the Senate. It’s one thing I hope that does come out of this Federal Court challenge to Senate vacancies – that there is a declaration that sets a time limit for when vacancies must be filled, so that it cuts down on future mass appointments, on top of ensuring that those regions have their proper representation as they are guaranteed under the Constitution, because yes, these things do matter.
Tag Archives: Bank of Canada
Roundup: Six months later
The Liberal government is now six months old, so everyone is checking in on the list of their promises kept and broken. This one list, compiled from the “Trudeau Meter,” however, is a bit nitpicky on some of those “broken” promises, calling them broken because there was no mention in this year’s budget when there are three more years of budgets left in the current mandate, and it’s pretty hard to expect everything to have happened in the first six months of a government, when there are a lot of moving pieces to keep track of. In other words, give them a little more time before you declare all of these promises broken. The deficit figures for this year continue to look better than anticipated as the Fiscal Monitor shows continued surpluses into the spring months (which the Conservatives will be insufferable about in QP next week, I can promise you), but that may be because CRA is apparently having a banner year in terms of collecting lapsed taxes, up to an extra $1 billion so far. So there’s that. The Conservatives, meanwhile, have the challenge of trying to stay united during this period of transition for their party, particularly as the leadership contest starts to intensify. As for the NDP, they’re now struggling to remain relevant six months later. So there’s that.
Roundup: The slow trickle out of caucus
Two more Conservative senators have left the fold to sit as independents, which is showing some of the strain on the caucus in that chamber. Senators Michel Rivard and Diane Bellemare both opted to leave the caucus, but we’ll see if they’re the last ones to do so, particularly as the Senate becomes more used to more independence on all fronts. In Rivard’s case, it was in part because of growing frustrations that were particularly felt after the last election where those senators were shunted aside, and not allowed to participate – Harper’s preferred tactic to dealing with the expenses scandals that largely happened under his watch with people that he appointed. For some of these senators, who were long-time members of the party and organizers, that sidelining hurt (and yes, there are still bruised feelings on the Liberal side of the Senate after they were kicked out of national caucus). As for Bellemare, she was already charting an independent course before the last election, and she was one of the senators who rebelled and broke ranks over those labour bills, and she carried on a very principled opposition from within her own party’s ranks, even as PMO leaned on the Senate to pass them (and when they didn’t pass C-377 the first time around and that caucus nearly revolted after then-Senate Leader Marjory LeBreton threatened and cajoled them, she subsequently resigned). As part of her resignation from caucus, Bellemare said she is looking to explore the creation of a quasi-third party in the Senate, a way for the independent senators to pool resources and one imagines give themselves leverage for things like more committee assignments and the like. The Senate is already looking at ways to reform their committee assignment processes, and the growing numbers of independent senators will likely make the work all the more urgent – particularly once the new appointees start rolling in. And while I’m not yet ready to declare the demise of parties within the Senate, it is starting to look like the Conservatives may have to make some changes in the way their Senate caucus operates lest they start losing yet more members.
Roundup: A cynicism prescription
We’re still talking Trudeau’s trip to Washington? Of course we are. Today some of it was a bit more oblique, but during his video town hall with Huffington Post, Trudeau was repeatedly asked about Donald Trump, and most of it he tried to avoid answering, talking about how lovely Cape Breton is (context: it’s become a kind of joke about how Americans fleeing Trump would move there), but he did offer that Trump would likely tone down his rhetoric should he win the nomination and start running for the general election instead. He did offer a few other, broader comments on what he’s witnessed in the American election cycle, about the cynicism that is on full display, and how it may need broad-based campaign finance reform like we saw here in Canada in the late nineties, and again after Harper came to power in 2006, where we got big money out of our politics. He’s got a point, but one suspects that there is more than just campaign finance laws that are broken in American politics. As for the big state dinner, Stéphane Dion said that it will help showcase that environment and the economy can exist together, as evident by some of the choices (like Catherine McKenna’s apparently inclusion). Meanwhile, it looks like we can probably expect an announcement on protecting the environment in the Arctic, as well as some overdue progress on thinning the border.
Roundup: Procedural secret ballots?
Suggestions for improving the way things work in the Commons are relatively common, and mostly a load of nonsense, but then Kady O’Malley comes along and pitches a new idea that I’d never heard of before, so I figured I’d deconstruct it a little. Essentially, she takes a never-before-used-but-on-the-books procedural tactic and looks to expand it – in this case, secret votes in the Commons on procedural matters. The one on the books is an appeal mechanism for MPs to use when their piece of private members’ business is deemed non-votable by both the subcommittee and the full committee that determines these things. Why this hasn’t been used before is because MPs generally know to keep their PMBs within the rules – federal jurisdiction (which they try to get around with the creation of national strategies) or by creatively trying to ensure that they don’t spend money (though some of those suggestions are too-cute-by-half, and yet they try anyway *cough*That NDP climate change bill that they won’t let die*cough*). O’Malley argues that this secret ballot process, extended to other procedural votes on things like time allocation and splitting complex bills into smaller parts, will somehow embolden MPs and ensure that House Leaders have to convince their caucuses rather than crack the whip. And while this sounds great in theory, I’m not buying it. For starters, even if we think that secret ballots for MPs under limited circumstances will somehow miraculously embolden them (and I’m highly doubtful about that one), it also takes them off the hook when it comes to voting for unpopular things like time allocation or keeping omnibus bills intact. Their voters should see them do it so that they can hold them to account for it. The larger problem, however, is that this is a suggestion that largely re-litigates the last parliament. The issue of omnibus bills this government has promised to amend the Standing Orders to prevent (and that’s a promise that we can hold them to account for), while the issue of time allocation is almost certainly to be handled differently, because frankly, we’re not seeing a return to the days of an incompetent House Leader, like Peter Van Loan most certainly was. And frankly, even it that wasn’t the case, I doubt we would see too many outliers on contentious bills being put before a procedural vote because they tend to buy their party’s decision on matters and will find a justification if it ever comes to that. So while it’s a nice idea in theory, I just can’t see this as anything other than yet another well-meaning bit of tinkering that will only serve to eventually make things worse through its unintended consequences. No thanks.
My reaction to @kady’s latest? https://t.co/nKKqjBfyqh pic.twitter.com/xbav36ddPi
— Dale Smith (@journo_dale) January 12, 2016
Roundup: The problem with private members’ bills
I’ve written a lot about the problems with private members’ bills, and in my column this week over at Loonie Politics, it came up again given that the lottery for the Order of Precedence was posted. I wrote about it back in the spring when there were a number of problematic ones that the Senate was possibly going to kill (and in some cases did when the clock ran out on them) for good reason – because they were bad bills. While interviewing Liberal Senator George Baker yesterday for a story I was writing, he offered this, which I unfortunately wasn’t able to include in the piece, but every MP should nevertheless read it and take it to heart:
“Here’s a real problem with these private member’s bills: if there’s a fault in the bill, if there’s a word out of place, if there’s an error in the wording or in the intent of a sentence of paragraph – if it’s a private member’s bill, then the Senate is in a quandary because if they amend the bill, then they will in all likelihood be defeating the bill. If you amend a bill in the Senate, if it’s a private member’s bill, it goes back to the Commons and it goes to the bottom of the list for consideration, and then the private member will come to the Senate committee and say you’re going to pass this bill. We had it happen three times in the past two years. They say you’re going to defeat the bill, so the Senate turned around and passed the bill, given the tradition of not defeating something that’s legitimately passed in the House of Commons, and Senate ignored the necessary amendments and they passed bad legislation.”
Baker is absolutely right in that there is a problem – MPs don’t have them drafted very well, and then don’t do their due diligence because these bills are automatically time-allocated by design. That a number of these bills died on the Order Paper in the Senate one hopes might be an object lesson to MPs that they need to do better, but unfortunately, the lesson too many MPs took is that the “unelected and unaccountable Senate” didn’t just rubber-stamp a bill because it passed the Commons. Except, of course, it’s not their job to rubber stamp, and we’ve had an increasing number of bad bills getting through the cracks based on these emotive arguments, and not a few hissy fits along the way *cough*Reform Act*cough*. And now we have bad laws on the books because of it, apparently content to let the courts handle it instead. It’s sad and a little pathetic, to be perfectly honest. We should be demanding out MPs do better, and when they screw up, they need to take their lumps so that they’ll do better next time. Otherwise they won’t learn – or worse, they will take the wrong lesson, and our system will be worse off.
Roundup: Niqab politics taking over
The politics of the niqab have slowly starting taking up a lot of oxygen on the election campaign, on a number of fronts. While people over the Twitter Machine tried to skew Harper’s “old stock Canadians” remark as some kind of racist or dog whistle politics (I’m not sure that interpretation makes sense given the context of what he was saying), the government has decided to crank their petulance around the attempted niqab ban up to eleven by declaring that they will ask the courts for a stay of the Federal Court of Appeal ruling on the niqab-at-citizenship-ceremonies case, essentially to deny the woman in question the right to vote. It’s going to be tough for them to convince the courts that there is some imminent danger if they allow her to take the oath before October 19th, much less convince the Supreme Court of Canada to hear the case (and they almost certainly won’t, seeing as this is a fairly open-and-shut case of administrative law, where the minister overreached is authority to implement the ban). But while this pettiness digs in, the panic over the niqab has already begun to spread, with the Bloc launching an attack ad to warn that the NDP will mean pipelines and niqabs in Quebec, while an NDP candidate has stated that while Thomas Mulcair reopens the constitution to try and abolish the Senate (never going to happen), that he deal with the menace of niqabs at the same time. No, seriously. He added that he’s sure the party supports him on that, and as of posting time, the party has not repudiated the statement (much as they did not really repudiate it when Alexandre Boulerice made similar statements about banning niqabs earlier). Justin Trudeau, for his part, said he wouldn’t try to appeal the ban to the Supreme Court. So there’s that. Meanwhile, Tabatha Southey takes on the government’s attempted niqab ban, with her usual acid wit.
Roundup: An questionable call to the Governor
While I often cringe about the media’s reluctance to refer to Stephen Harper as prime minister during the writ period (as he remains prime minister and will until he offers the Governor General his resignation) out of an exaggerated sense of fairness, there was an incident yesterday where Harper himself blurred that line between being prime minister, and being the Conservative leader campaigning for his own ends. For the first time that I can recall, we got a press release that mentioned that the Prime Minister called up the Governor of the Bank of Canada. While the text was pretty banal, talking about “ongoing developments” in the global economy and the recent declines in the markets, it was still unusual because we never get these kinds of releases. Ever. There is a very clear separation between government fiscal policy and the monetary policy set by the Bank of Canada, and the two should never meet – in fact, there is an issue in Canadian history where the Prime Minister tried to interfere with the Bank of Canada, and the Governor of the day ended up resigning in protest as a result. While the purpose of Harper’s call to Governor Poloz is not mentioned, the fact that it came on the day where Harper’s campaign message was all about how only his party could be trusted to weather this global economic turbulence, well, it’s pretty icky. Harper subtly politicizes Poloz by using him as a campaign prop – look at my economic credentials! I’m talking to the Bank of Canada Governor, like an economic boss! For all we know, Harper and Poloz have a weekly call where they talk trends and forecasts, and so on, but if that’s the case, we never hear about it. This time, Harper made sure that we knew about it. I’m having a hard time trying to see how this is acceptable in any way.
Roundup: The anti-intellectual warning shot
The markets are crashing, the dollar continues to plummet and the price of oil seems to be in free-fall, but what is it that has the Canadian commentariat entranced – well, aside from the latest Duffy minutiae? The fact that Doug Ford may be contemplating the federal Conservative leadership if Stephen Harper fails to win the upcoming election. It kind of makes me want to weep. “Oh, it’ll be hilarious!” the Twitter Machine keeps relaying, but no, it wouldn’t. It would be heartbreaking for what it means to democracy. As we saw with the Rob Ford years in Toronto, and as we’re seeing play out with the Donald Trump primary race in the States, what more rational people see as hilarious and unbelievable is being embraced by a share of the electorate who are disengaged and who believe that all politicians are liars, so they would rather someone who stands up there and “tells it like it is,” never mind that what they’re telling them is completely divorced from reality and also generally false. We are already dealing with an overload of anti-intellectualism in the Canadian discourse (and no, not just from the right-leaning populists – you should see the abuse heaped on the economists who dared to debunk the NDP’s minimum wage proposal earlier in the week). Do we need it compounded on the federal scene by such an individual? While people may treat it like a joke, it’s a legitimate threat. Remember that Rob Ford got elected mayor because the very people who dismiss the Ford brothers can’t seem to grasp that they do strike a chord with voters, and I can’t think of anything more terrifying for the future of federal politics.
Roundup: A contraction and a rate cut
While he didn’t use the word itself, Bank of Canada Governor Stephen Poloz essentially said that Canada is in a recession, and he cut the interest rate by another quarter of a percent, leaving prime at 0.5 percent. Poloz said that we are in a contraction, but there should be growth in non-energy sectors in the second half of the year. Nevertheless, shrinking the growth outlook for the year by a full percentage point of GDP blows billions of dollars out of the projections that were built into the government’s budget, which almost certainly will push it into real deficit territory (as opposed to the paper surplus that it was sitting in after raiding the contingency reserve and EI fund in order to pay for those family tax breaks and still make it look like there’s a surplus). Where the real kicker could come in is the fact that the Bank of Canada is trying to use monetary policy to stimulate the economy to help it grow, while the government is cutting in order to achieve its balanced budget rather than stimulating at a time of contraction to prime the pump, as it were, and there was talk about how it meant the government was basically undoing the work the Bank was trying to do. So there’s that. Also not helpful is the government then coming out to attack Justin Trudeau and Thomas Mulcair as a means of trying to distract from their economic record, so that they can make the pitch to be allowed to stay in office after the election. Maclean’s assembled an expert panel to discuss the rate cut, while Andrew Coyne fears the damage that all of the election promises will end up causing the economy by the time the vote is over.